In the late 1960s ZPG became a big political movement in the U.S. and parts of Europe, with strong links to environmentalism and feminism. Yale University was a stronghold of the ZPG activists who believed "that a constantly increasing population is responsible for many of our problems: pollution, violence, loss of values and of individual privacy."[8] Founding fathers of the movement were Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, and Thomas Eisner. Ehrlich stated: "The mother of the year should be a sterlized woman with two adopted children."

My father was an OB/GYN in the '60s and 70's. I remember him wearing a ZPG button on his lab coat.That was the thinking post baby boom, and he was a supporter of that cause. Geez Dad, what a waste of time.

The biggest side effect of the population leveling off is that once the baby boomers die off, there will be a massive world-wide worker shortage. Countries will be fighting to let immigrants in. It will be the greatest boon to the Middle Class since the Black Death.

GAT_00:Only if you're worried about the ratio of white people to everyone else.

This.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal recently that began by saying "hey, the middle class is vanishing because of birth rates! Let's use 'white and college educated' as a stand-in for middle class, because that's what we think when we think middle class."

Fertility panic isn't so much related to overpopulation as it is to funding the old people's pensions. If we don't have enough young people we're going to have to go all soylent green on the old folks homes.

Yes, but the reasons are idiotic: They're not moral, or ethical, or survival, or even rational.

They're economic.

And the only reason why they're economic is because Capitalism only works under a policy of constant growth which simply is not possible in a finite system.

The solution, then, is not the keep increasing the population for economic prosperity's sake, but to throw away Capitalism entirely and adopt a new economic metric that doesn't rely on growth and profit as the be-all and end-all of human endeavor.

Fubini:Fertility panic isn't so much related to overpopulation as it is to funding the old people's pensions. If we don't have enough young people we're going to have to go all soylent green on the old folks homes.

What if the baby boom isn't about preventing Soylent Green, but crafty old people plotting to enact Swift's A Modest Proposal?

Ishkur:Yes, but the reasons are idiotic: They're not moral, or ethical, or survival, or even rational.

They're economic.

And the only reason why they're economic is because Capitalism only works under a policy of constant growth which simply is not possible in a finite system.

The solution, then, is not the keep increasing the population for economic prosperity's sake, but to throw away Capitalism entirely and adopt a new economic metric that doesn't rely on growth and profit as the be-all and end-all of human endeavor.

We have to change our priorities here.

Profit's a fine motivator/metric. Profit GROWTH is the killer. When all those assholes in the 80s decided to fetishize financial industry gambling, we all lost.

Well, fewer humans, particularly in developed countries is certainly better for maintaining the habitability of the earth, but governments depend on an ever-expanding tax-base to make good on those promises they made.

I'm with Gat on this one. I see white racists complain about being out-bred by the browns all the time and all I can think is, "You can't stand your own women enough to fark them. It's almost like subconsciously you aren't convinced of your own superiority after all."

Ishkur:Yes, but the reasons are idiotic: They're not moral, or ethical, or survival, or even rational.

They're economic.

And the only reason why they're economic is because Capitalism only works under a policy of constant growth which simply is not possible in a finite system.

The solution, then, is not the keep increasing the population for economic prosperity's sake, but to throw away Capitalism entirely and adopt a new economic metric that doesn't rely on growth and profit as the be-all and end-all of human endeavor.

We have to change our priorities here.

But that's like work and stuff. 3D printing and private asteroid mining will save us.

In the late 1960s ZPG became a big political movement in the U.S. and parts of Europe, with strong links to environmentalism and feminism. Yale University was a stronghold of the ZPG activists who believed "that a constantly increasing population is responsible for many of our problems: pollution, violence, loss of values and of individual privacy."[8] Founding fathers of the movement were Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, and Thomas Eisner. Ehrlich stated: "The mother of the year should be a sterlized woman with two adopted children."

My father was an OB/GYN in the '60s and 70's. I remember him wearing a ZPG button on his lab coat.That was the thinking post baby boom, and he was a supporter of that cause. Geez Dad, what a waste of time.

Well, when you base retirement plans on Ponzi schemes you need more growth.

I'm not saying there's not room for more growth, but have you seen a graph of human population growth?

Population is a huge concern whether it's not having enough workers to support the old folks or so many people that resources like food, water and energy because a problem not to mention environmental concerns.

I'm sure we as a species will survive but we're going to have issues with population.

Pumpernickel bread:Well, fewer humans, particularly in developed countries is certainly better for maintaining the habitability of the earth, but governments depend on an ever-expanding tax-base to make good on those promises they made.

Private choices are too blame, too. Every retirement planning guide shows a WASPY couple that look 50 retiring to one of their fantastic beach homes, drinking wine and eating great food, before going on an all-inclusive cruise to the Caribbean.

What they sometimes fail to note is that investment based retirement plans and Social Security share a common thread: They both require extracting wealth from future productivity to fund the retirement of old people.

If you look at current and projected water shortages its simple to see that over-population is a real problem and there are not enough resources to sustain our current global population, never mind an additional few billion.

Babyboomers not being able to retire to a jet setting life of luxory like medieval Royalty shouldn't be the arbitrator of policies. Unfortunately it is and western civilization looks to be committing suicide because of it.

Mentat:The biggest side effect of the population leveling off is that once the baby boomers die off, there will be a massive world-wide worker shortage. Countries will be fighting to let immigrants in. It will be the greatest boon to the Middle Class since the Black Death.

Why? Really not saying you're totally right or wrong, but with reduced population comes... reduced demand. Yes? No?

Again, it's more the matter of capitalism in a negative-growth environment. It's not that capital can't demand gain on itself in a shrinking economy, but if it does, eventually *all* the rewards of the system go to the accumulated capital-holders. It's plausible in a growing economy (which has largely been predicated on a growing population) because some of the gains go to labor (and demand) and some of them go to pay profit to capital-holders for holding capital.

Fubini:Fertility panic isn't so much related to overpopulation as it is to funding the old people's pensions. If we don't have enough young people we're going to have to go all soylent green on the old folks homes.

Japan and Italy are already zooming down that hill, with China right on their ass and picking up speed.

As a planet, we need to figure out how to deal with most people living to 80 and most women only having two or three kids. Not the old model of croaking at fifty and leaving behind six sickly kids.

Koodz:I'm with Gat on this one. I see white racists complain about being out-bred by the browns all the time and all I can think is, "You can't stand your own women enough to fark them. It's almost like subconsciously you aren't convinced of your own superiority after all."

Ishkur:Yes, but the reasons are idiotic: They're not moral, or ethical, or survival, or even rational.

They're economic.

And the only reason why they're economic is because Capitalism only works under a policy of constant growth which simply is not possible in a finite system.

The solution, then, is not the keep increasing the population for economic prosperity's sake, but to throw away Capitalism entirely and adopt a new economic metric that doesn't rely on growth and profit as the be-all and end-all of human endeavor.

We have to change our priorities here.

I wish I could give this post the HERO tag. I also agree with this quote FTFA " If this is a new fad in government policy, I think I'll pass. Simply producing larger raw numbers of people is no substitute for a society where families produce the children they can love and afford to raise. "

Exactly. One of the reasons I don't have any children myself is because among my sibling there are more 15 nieces and nephews with my eldest brother has nine kids all to himself. He doesn't have any kids imo, what he's got is a human resources issue.

Ishkur:Yes, but the reasons are idiotic: They're not moral, or ethical, or survival, or even rational.

They're economic.

And the only reason why they're economic is because Capitalism only works under a policy of constant growth which simply is not possible in a finite system.

The solution, then, is not the keep increasing the population for economic prosperity's sake, but to throw away Capitalism entirely and adopt a new economic metric that doesn't rely on growth and profit as the be-all and end-all of human endeavor.

We have to change our priorities here.

We're not ready to stop growth. A world wide GPD/Capita of $12,000 (PPP indexed) isn't exactly a super comfortable wage. Maybe when we get to the US's total we can stop concentrating on growth and start concentrating on wealth for a change. (Time=money, so wealth is the ability to spend your time not working.)

Lack of energy is the current inhibitor for growth. We need to find a way to extract more energy from this planet so that we can spread and harvest other planets (Jupiter, here we come!) I am pinning many of my hopes to ITER. Harnessing the power of fusion is still the future.

Ishkur:Yes, but the reasons are idiotic: They're not moral, or ethical, or survival, or even rational.

They're economic.

And the only reason why they're economic is because Capitalism only works under a policy of constant growth which simply is not possible in a finite system.

The solution, then, is not the keep increasing the population for economic prosperity's sake, but to throw away Capitalism entirely and adopt a new economic metric that doesn't rely on growth and profit as the be-all and end-all of human endeavor.

And as a progressive humanist, all I can say is: good. White people are oppressors, and they should have a taste of their own medicine at the hands of their victims. I can't wait to see the day when Europe and America is majority nonwhite and their wealth and power stripped away. Only by then could the world be a peaceful and diverse society free of hate.

Happy Hours:Well, when you base retirement plans on Ponzi schemes you need more growth.

SS isn't a Ponzi scheme and it doesn't need more growth.

SS is fine so long as there are always more working people than retired people -- that's not a Ponzi scheme. The big SS crunch over the next 15 years is because the Boomber are too numerous and they didn't have enough children.